John Lott's Website

Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.

3/10/2005

Off to give talks over the next couple of days

I will be in New Orleans to give talks to the annual Public Choice meetings as well as the Federalist Society. Talks will be on my recent work with Kevin Hassett on media bias and the judicial confirmation process.

This is a rather thuggish tactic for the Democratic party to openly track signature gatherers and physically disrupt their ability to gather signatures. It doesn't signal a lot of confidence among Democrats.

Scalia v. Breyer on Using International Law for Precedent

John Fund describes a recent debate between Justices Scalia and Breyer:

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the minority dissent in the juvenile death penalty case, opened his argument by lamenting the "arrogance" of judges who cite international law rather than the U.S. Constitution they are sworn to uphold. "Doesn't it seem arrogant to think I can decide moral views for penology, death penalty and abortion?" he asked, in arguing that legislatures or voters should make those decisions.

Justice Stephen Breyer replied that the court had to look more widely at how to define fundamental rights in an increasingly global society. "U.S. law is not handed down from on high even at the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "The law emerges from a conversation with judges, lawyers, professors and law students.... It's what I call opening your eyes as to what's going on elsewhere."

"What you're looking for are the standards of decency of American society," Mr. Scalia shot back. "What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe?" That stung Mr. Breyer, who had cited a court case from Zimbabwe in a decision a few years back. Acknowledging that the country's rule of law has been destroyed under the despotic rule of Robert Mugabe, Mr. Breyer agreed that his citation of a Zimbabwean judge was "unfortunate."

But that's the trouble. When citing international law, judges are likely to be selective in their use of foreign opinions, cherry-picking those that fit the outcome they want. A foreign court may oppose the death penalty, for example, but since the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world to have legalized third-trimester abortions, the same foreign court would likely have a more conservative slant on abortion.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell gets an "F" for his fiscal policy

"So why did Ed Rendell finish 41 out of 42 governors? (Eight governors were excluded from the study because they just began office). The only governor ranked behind Rendell was McGreevey, who resigned last year. It appears that Rendell’s plan of siphoning $1 billion a year from working Pennsylvanians to support his massive government spending plan had something to do with his low marks. There’s also those hidden taxes, including higher fees for state inspections and emissions testing. And let’s not forget the $50 tax on workers Rendell pushed through last year, allowing communities to raise their occupational privilege tax from $10 to $52 a year."

The first letter misses the central point. With all the penalties that felons still face after they are released from prison, why is it that this is the one single penalty that Democrats are trying to remove. Why not restore their right to professional or business licenses? Why not their ability to work for the government or unions? Why not their ability to own a gun? it is hard to deny that this is being pushed by Democrats (and this change only for felons) because they believe that it helps them politically.